Site Search Navigation

Site Navigation

Site Mobile Navigation

Supported by

Unconscious Attitudes on Race and Gender

By Nicholas D. Kristof April 5, 2008 11:58 pmApril 5, 2008 11:58 pm

My Sunday column is on the impact in this election cycle of our unconscious minds, particularly toward race and gender. I would strongly encourage you to take some tests that measure your own attitudes. Joshua Correll at University of Chicago has created an on-line test called “the police officer’s dilemma,” in which you encounter 100 pictures of black and white men, some armed and some unarmed. The idea is to shoot those who are armed and holster your gun when you see someone unarmed — and the program measures how fast you do these things. Try it — if you’re like most whites and many blacks, you’re quicker to shoot blacks than whites.

I didn’t have space in my column to mention it, but age is an area where Americans routinely have an unconscious aversion to older people, thinking youth is better. It’s not quite clear how that translates into politics, but it does mean that each of the three presidential contenders at this point faces some unconscious bias in many Americans.

I welcome your thoughts about these issues and how they will play out in 2008. Please post below.

An ill-advised column. Such new insights–we distrust people who are “different”–like blondes in Bangalore, or tall people among midgets. The problems and opportunities confronting Hillary and Obama are similar to those facing McCain–he’s old–they’re not, sorta…black cabbies are reluctant to pick up young black passengers wearing hoodies. We don’t need tests to tell us that some places seem safer than others. We trust our spiritual leaders, but a disproportionate number are child molesters.

This article is pointless. White Americans are racists, we’re told, but guess who form the major market for rap? Oprah would not be so wealthy if her audience were only blacks. Bloomberg is a Jewish mayor of a city that has less than 1 million Jews.

Ultimately, we vote with our sense of confidence and feeling of inspiration. Barbara Jordan would have had none of the issues confronting Hillary…and obama has a far greater white support base than Mondale, Dukakis and other wet dishrags.

I love articles about race written by people who can’t put enough distance between themselves and “them”. Boo!!!

I noticed that the black people holding guns generally had it shown much clearer, and seemed to be more often in the center of the page (or at least shown consecutively in the same location). I was able to see the outline of the gun against a clear background without even needing to refocus my eyes sometimes. Yet I often had to track down the gun on the white people. It seems slightly opposite for the cell phones, but not as much. But I think this was a major influence on my score.

If you have a bias, it should show when you see the gun on a white person, but hesitate slightly on pressing the button. I noticed I did that about 2 or 3 times…

I took the first test at the Harvard page, and they may be right that it’s easier to categorize blacks and weapons together. But I have a problem with their test… A person gets better at the task over time. And since the first combined category was whites and weapons versus blacks and harmless items, I would naturally do worse to start and then improve in subsequent tests.

So in both of theses tests, if they are trying to prove this phenomenon of bias against blacks (which surely is true), they should at least make it so that a random test would perhaps show that there is an “anti-white” bias because of the factors I mentioned above, and then let people’s real bias overturn that to conclusively show a bias against blacks.

In addition to tribalism, biases are based on excessive dependency on others, a consequence of feeling inadequate, and a concurrent anger at being dependent. Almost all humans have, as their primary caregiver from birth on, a female. Sometimes very competent, sometimes not. The more conflicts a woman brings to parenthood, whether from her own upbringing, abuse, immaturity, whatever, the more likely she is to overreach as a parent with excessive control over the child or excessive ignoring of the child’s needs. This washes over the child and replicates the very dependency and anger the mother is trying to get away from. The child grows up, and through a variety of means, rebels in order to achieve “independence.” Most humans can’t directly dislike their mother (even though that is the original source of the conflict, with active or passive reinforcement by the father), so they transfer the unconscious rage to a similar “object”…women in general. Racial and generational bias are learned much later, and, while effort is still required, less difficult to overcome, with generational bias having much less anger to deal with. Tragically, this leads me to think that McCain will become the next president, unless something wrong with his mental or physical condition becomes more obvious.

Great column yet again. Have fun in Ithaca. Wish my brother still went there, I would definitely make it a mandate for him to go. Already told my cousin, so I hope she can make it. I will be sure to tell her to go early. Have a pleasant evening.

It seems to me that the real point of the “police officer’s dilemma” test is that most people are, unconsciously OR consciously, more likely to suspect blacks of violent intentions. The Web site never informs its visitors that they will see an equal number of armed blacks and armed whites — test takers’ own conscious, admitted preconceptions about the heightened likelihood of a black man carrying a weapon could skew their results just as much if not more than any “unconscious” prejudices.

Applying this observation to the broader question Mr. Kristof raised, I don’t think the unconscious, unacknowledged race- or gender- or age-based prejudices that every social, sentient human carries around are going to matter so much in this (or any) election. Obama, Clinton, and McCain aren’t blurry, nameless, context-less figures in snapshots — the ones about whom people form split-second judgments which sometimes reveal those unconscious biases. On the contrary, the candidates’ quirks, personalities, backgrounds and thoughts have been analyzed ad nauseam in the most obscure and public fora of our country.

What I believe will play a far greater role are the biases that voters DO acknowledge and rationalize — if not to others, at least to themselves. To assume that purely unconscious prejudices will ultimately affect the way ballots are filled out in November suggests a rather simplistic view of American voters.

It makes no sense that if we are racist and sexist, why we have a black man and a woman as front runners of a party. Also, considering that violent crime is committed in vastly disproportionate number by blacks vs. whites, it is no wonder that there is a greater threat percieved by a black man holding a cell phone vs. a white man.

I took the Chicago “shooter” test. The test measures both reaction time *and* accurate identification. But the results only report time, not the accuracy of identification by race. It would be much more enlightening if the results reports the accuracy, as well as the timing, of identifcation of “shooters” by race.

Also, I found that scores depend upon practice.

Nevertheless, an interesting test.

Finally, I’d like to note that the link to the blog in the online column is broken as of ~ 3:00 am Sunday morning.

Oh for goodness sake – we are a world gone politically correct mad – Bush said we can’t criticize him or his administration for to do so would be unamerican, Israelis say we can’t criticize their actions for to do so would be anti-semitic, Obama says don’t vote for me because I’m a black man a but remember that I’m here because of MLK but please give broad allowances for my own spiritual minister adviser who preaches at times over the last 20 years terribly racist and well, deranged conspiracies but if you do criticize Obama then you’re a racist.

So what kind of conclusions are we going to draw against this election – that if you’re not black and don’t vote for Obama, then you’re a racist and if you’re not a man and don’t vote for Hillary then you’re a misogynist? And what are you if you don’t vote for McCain who is a mature, wealthy white male?

Let’s face it – some people will vote for Hillary because she’s a woman, some won’t for the same reason, others will vote for Obama because is he is a black man and others won’t for the same reason and well let’s face another fact – the GOP usually stays well in line so McCain it is!

Menachem Begin once stated, “Poles drink antisemitism with their mothers’ milk.” This cuts to the core of the problem. The memory ‘tapes’ that we grew up with cannot be erased. We can only recognize that they are there and consciously override them.

Those of us who grew up in the 1950s and 60s heard those tapes. We watch Andy & Amos and Manchester on the Jack Benny Show. We heard the older version of the children’s jingle “Catch a tiger by the toe.”

These memories make us like alcoholics. We must acknowledge their presence. However, the fact that psychological tests can evade our conscious override mechanisms does not make us racists, even if we fail them.

On the hopeful side, you wrote a column a few years ago on interracial dating. Perhaps these memories are not there for many younger people.

As a women with dark skin, I find racism to be obvious and blatant, rather than subtle and unconscious. Women with white skin and blond hair are given better opportunities for marriage and careers. This seems to be a taboo subject, but there are men who derive their sense of status from marrying a woman who does not look like one of us. It wouldn’t matter except for the economic consequences. You see the blonds with their children, families and support systems, which women of color and dark, ethnic women are less likely to have. The conservative racists are not at fault for this. It is the educated, so-called liberal men who may be hypocritical in this regard. Also, there are people who knowingly choose a mate in order to have light skinned children. Racism is alive and well and is far from unconscious.

Dr. Hrdy does not explore why we are “wired” to perceive women as “not fit for tough leadership positions.” But she does make a strong case, based on her own extensive field work, as well as extensive data she has gathered, that this “wiring” may well be cultural, and probably misguided.

In fact, with no apparent political, cultural or gender axes to grind herself, Dr. Hrdy makes a strong case that the reality is (as is so often the case) the opposite of our perception: Women, like all female primates, and probably most female mammals, have the toughest and most important role in the survival of the their own species, and not just because of their most obvious function. Not only must women bear our young, but they also must decide where, when, how often, and with whom, they can risk conception, and exactly what resources they can afford to invest in bringing immatures to maturity. Equally important, if not more so, women must decide when NOT to do these things.

As Dr. Hrdy describes exactly how much intelligence , endurance and the ability to make truly tough decisions women must possess to succeed at this, readers (This one, at least.) can come to only one conclusion:

Women must be, and are, AT LEAST as good at making tough decisions and following through on those decisions, as men. They HAVE to be.

And this reader, at least, considering Dr. Hrdy’s argument in light of his own observations over almost six decades, is convinced, so far, that indeed, women ARE better than men at this.

One caveat, to at least pre-empt where my own argument may be deployed by distortion in a current contest: Dr. Hrdy’s case, and my argument, are generalizations, of course. Some women are not more intelligent, or tougher, than some men, and some women make poorer choices than some men.

That’s why, in spite of what I’ve said above, and frankly, with some wistful regret, I’m supporting Senator Barack Obama for President.

Although there is definitely a connection between individual psychological dimensions and political outcomes it is far from completely explaining the whole story.

One Black Congressman in Georgia who was forced to represent a predeminately White rural district in the 90’s (after the Supreme Court decision on the McKinney district) got the support of White voters who still use the “N” word. The over riding factor was “money”. He was responsible for bringing home the bacon to his constituents.

The point is that only looking at the political outcomes can you guage the ultimate net effects of sexism and racism on electoral politics.

On the Presidential Level the usual source of candidates comes from 3 pools: Governors, US Senate, and US House of Representatives (once in a blue moon a General gets thrown in). When looking at these 3 pools in the framework of which is greater sexism or racism, bottom-line is that its a wash.

Below are two tables. The first table is what most commentators tend to quote from, the raw numbers. However a more accurate picture is to look at percentages compared to the proportions that each group has of the US population.

Governors Senate House
Blacks 2 1 39

Women 8 16 70

US Pop Governors Senate House
Blacks 12.7% 4.0% 1.0% 9.0%

Women 50.8% 16.0% 16.0% 16.1%

In the House of Representatives Blacks are closer to their US Population share then Women . In the Senate the reverse is true, Women are closer then Blacks. For the category of Governors both groups are equally distant (1/3 of their Pop. share) from their population share.

It’s an interesting analysis. I think our brains are even more clever at adapting to our own gender prejudices; that is — it has never occurred to me or anyone I’ve spoken to (sorry – no time for scientific analysis) that Hillary Clinton is not strong, or would not be competent enough to be an executive. If anything I’ve always believed that Hillary’s insecurity, based on her gender, has driven her to become too strong, too overbearing, too combative and braggadocios.

Barack Obama is the feminine candidate in this campaign.

However, I will allow. There may be powerful subconscious forces that make the race itch the more compelling old wound to attend to than the gender itch.

One major problem with this type of test is that it is no longer an accurate measure if the subject knows what the test is trying to determine. Once alerted to the aim of the test the subject usually subconsciously or consciously answers in a way that corresponds with what he or she thinks is the “desired” or “moral” answer. So, for everyone out there like me that took the test after reading your post, this test is not a dependable measure of your “implicit attitude toward Black and White people”— read subconscious racism. For example, after browsing your post I took the test. My “scores” were:

These are the real results of my test; showing quicker response time to shoot White armed men than Black armed men, and slower response time to shoot Black unarmed men than White men. The question is: was my reaction time slower for Black unarmed men because I wanted to make sure that they didn’t have a gun because I knew what the test was trying to determine? And yes, I am genteel, un-closeted White man. For better or for worse, the results of my test mean absolutely zip about my implicit attitude toward race. These studies have to be conducted in highly controlled environments.
So, my advice is that you should probably note this illusory effect in your post so that people don’t start waving around the results giving themselves a pat on the back without due cause. Perhaps you could suggest instead that the reader administer this test to his or her spouse or friend without telling them what it is. This could stir up some particularly heated Sunday arguments that would really liven up the tail of the weekend—culminating, finally with someone brandishing a cell phone (to call mom) or a gun (to shoot the damn computer).

I would like you to address the apparant bias that exists in the media against reporting about African American voter attitudes. It seems to me that African American voters vote solely on race at all levels of elective office. Voting 90% or so for Obama is just a more visible statistic. Yet much is made about white voter bias where much progress has been made over the years although much still needs to be done. I think that “liberals” should finally stop feeling guilty about past injustices and highlight the fact that the real bias exists in the African American community.

Advocates of democratic systems of government pin their hopes on the citizens’ intelligence to vote with discernment. There is a misguided belief that everyone is born equal, thus the one person one vote ideal. They also hold the misplaced trust that each person has a free-will to exercise freedom of choice inside the voting booth. But all these are delusions. They have been proven wrong time and time again. Just look at recent history and the disastrous results.

The problem is human nature. People has a deluded idea about the “self” and the so-called “free-will.” It is deeply ingrained in their consciousness.

There is no such thing as free-will. What we imagine to be free-will is nothing but a “conditioned” consciousness. That’s what marketing and advertising – and we hope education – are all about. Why else are the candidates spending millions buying ads like there’s no tomorrow? Conditioning goes very deep into our consciousness and sub-consciousness from day one, as a baby and even earlier. Nature and nurture both play a role. Preferences, likes and dislikes, are encoded into each person by their experiences through everyday interactions. Ask a man if he is open-minded and he will be conditioned to hide his prejudices. Behind closed doors and curtains is another matter. But he was conditioned, he can’t help it.

Pushing emotional buttons win over intellect and reason any day. Heart trumps the mind. That’s why the fear-mongers and terrorists are so successful. Don’t hold your breath that prejudices can be eliminated by one good speech. Only the wise can see through the mud and muck. It will take a long time to re-condition old habits. Educating young people to improve their critical thinking is so essential to maintain a healthy democracy. The future is not too bright if they are taught to put all their trust in Intelligent Design.

The delusion of the “self” drives two very troublesome mind states or mental attitudes: (1) “self-interest” and (2) “self-righteousness”.

All politics stink because politics is built on nothing but conflicting “self-interests” and “self-righteousness” (i.e. ideologies). If one can’t stand the stench, don’t get into politics and run for office. No one can come out untarnished. It is not a Hollywood screenplay. Not a pretty picture.

Nevertheless, democracy is still the preferred system of government because the citizens collectively can only blame themselves for making stupid choices and cannot lay all the blame on some dictator or king/queen. It is a Blame-Sharing scheme. Too bad for democracies! They cannot just send the bad guy/gal to be hung or shot.

We should have a little bit of sympathy for these historical evils though. The monsters need willing accomplices. All those yes-men, yes-women and citizens who followed and empowered them to commit horrendous crimes must share a great deal of the blame.

Not everyone is easily fooled but the discerning ones are always a tiny minority. Then again, there is always hope and another election.

These kinds of articles at this point in the race are troubling. The democratic primary is definitely between two particular individuals at this point, and one of them is dishonest and recklessly divisive. I resent her being placed in a position as representing all women, and all women in politics. It depresses the hell out of me actually. There will be fabulous women running for president, and they will get elected. Hillary just isn’t one of them.

It seems that imputing the “unconscious” to racist and sexist attitudes and beliefs is a convenient excuse for not doing the hard work of critical thinking and reflection about the reasons why we may hold those beliefs and attitudes. I am dubious about reductionist models, especially in science, that attempt to reduce very complex and dynamic social interactions/networks to neuro-physiological responses reflected neatly, analytically, and impressively in numerical graphs and computer models.

In my view these experiments demonstrate precious little; what they do suggest, however, is that academics, in an attempt to be “cutting-edge” will appeal to the authority and prestige of those explanatory science-backed models, without doing the deeper and more difficult work that critical thinking demands. So before we praise these methods and experiments we may want to consider their implications, noted by the early Greek philosophers and upheld in most modern democratic judicial systems: moral responsibility presupposes human choice and human choice is based on beliefs and attitudes…therefore our responsibility also presupposes that we choose our beliefs and attitudes, quite consciously, but not always reflectively. Thus, contrary to the implications of these experiments, our responsibility is much greater than we might suppose.

Wonderful column!
One tiny quibble: You said “men may have a hard-wired desire to control and impregnate them.” It would be safer (and more alliterative) to say “copulate with” than “impregnate”.
Thank you for writing such an important column. All should read it.

I think what is over looked by most of the media, is that now-a-days, people judge a person on their behavior, not race or gender. Are there those who still harbor the biases, you bet, they probably number in the millions, but those of us who have evolved judge a person by their behavior. If a person is a knucklehead, it’s not because of their gender or race, it’s because they’re a knucklehead.
Lest we become too focused on ourselves, race is what makes foreign policy so tricky in the far east. Name one country from Korea, Japan, China, the Phillipines and more and no one trust anyone because of race. It’s not pretty but it is often true.

Once the general public understands this research it will revolutionize – ie greatly reduce – the terrible problems of gender and race discrimination in our society.

There has never been a female president of the US. STOP and think about that. Despite the very different lives of men and women, 50% of the people have never been represented in the White House in the USA as of 2008! Is that a representative government? And many women are almost as opposed to women as men are and totally unable to see why.

THANK YOU!!!!! More coulmns like this please!

What's Next

About Nicholas Kristof

This blog expands on Nicholas Kristof’s twice-weekly columns, sharing thoughts that shape the writing but don’t always make it into the 800-word text. It’s also the place where readers make their voices heard.